My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.

Just as a bit of Devil's Advocacy, couldn't most if not all CAS be accomplished by equiping squads with a laser designator or 3, and smart munitions deployed from drones? I realise that that might be a bit too much 'joint forces' for reality, but I'm curious.

Annachie wrote:Just as a bit of Devil's Advocacy, couldn't most if not all CAS be accomplished by equiping squads with a laser designator or 3, and smart munitions deployed from drones? I realise that that might be a bit too much 'joint forces' for reality, but I'm curious.

A 30mm round for a GAU-8 costs a couple of dollars, a laser guidance package for a "smart bomb" runs ten of thousands if not millions.

There are laser designators sent out with some squads -- mostly special forces -- but they are used primarily on high-value targets rather than CAS.

Also, AFAIK, smart munitions for drones aren't compatible with laser-designators; they're electro-optical or imaging-IR, possibly GPS-guided.

Annachie wrote:Just as a bit of Devil's Advocacy, couldn't most if not all CAS be accomplished by equiping squads with a laser designator or 3, and smart munitions deployed from drones? I realise that that might be a bit too much 'joint forces' for reality, but I'm curious.

Plus, in warfare, you don't fight the weapon, you fight the man. The A-10, right there in your face, has a much more intimidating presence than a (essentially) invisible drone.



.

Footnote in news here is that 100 A-10s have been saved in the latest military appropriation bill, along with lots of other nice to have's.

Daryl wrote:Footnote in news here is that 100 A-10s have been saved in the latest military appropriation bill, along with lots of other nice to have's.

Good News indeed.
Can you cite a source for us?

I tried to "Google" the answer to my own question.
In the process, I just found out about this:

* https://www.facebook.com/savethea10?fref=nf
It's a Facebook group that's advocating Saving the A-10.
Cool.

{It's ALMOST enough for me to join Facebook; but not quite enough.}



.

My notice was in print media & wasn't on the paper's website. However I found
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/congress ... s-1.319021

which specifically mentions the A-10.

Ensign Re-read wrote:

Daryl wrote:Footnote in news here is that 100 A-10s have been saved in the latest military appropriation bill, along with lots of other nice to have's.

Good News indeed.
Can you cite a source for us?

I tried to "Google" the answer to my own question.
In the process, I just found out about this:

* https://www.facebook.com/savethea10?fref=nf
It's a Facebook group that's advocating Saving the A-10.
Cool.

{It's ALMOST enough for me to join Facebook; but not quite enough.}



.

Drones with smart weapons are already here, Reapers carrying Hellfire ATGM's are the preferred device for extrajudicial assassination of high value terrorist targets.

What is ultimately needed is a low cost way to essentially overwhelm a ground target or even enemy aerial weapons systems (attack helicopters, UCAV's and ground attack aircraft) with attacks using multiple engagement methods and varying in time and space to the extent that enemy seekers and air defense weapons cannot track and engage.

To my mind, the key enablers are the use of mass production and the ability of Western troops to easily use "smart devices". Consider that devices like iPhones or GARMIN RINO GPS systems cost between $400-$700 USD per item, and most of the enabling technologies of *smart* weapons is embedded in these devices. We currently accept that military devices are expensive and essentially "bespoke" items that are hand built in small batches, which is one of the reasons for the vast cost of military hardware, but looking at things like the "Willow Run" factory it is entirely possible to build even large and complex items in vast quantities and for "reasonable" prices. If we can go into battle firing Hellfires for $4000/round rather than $40,000/round (or Excalibur smart artillery rounds for $7000/round rather than $70,000/round) then the battlefield equations become rather more lopsided in favour of us (it is already a good deal to fire two smart rounds at a $3 million dollar tank, you will come out ahead regardless if one or both rounds hit).

The other factor is Western culture. In WWII, the Americans were justly famous for their high degree of mechanization, this was possible because the vast majority of American "kids" grew up around vehicles and many of them had hands on experience using them. You can say the Chinese make quadcopter drones for peanuts, but it is American kids who buy them for $99 at "The Source" and play with them for hours, Americans have far more hands on familiarity than almost anyone else.

Now these qualities might not always obtain, and of course there is also the "will" of forces to engage and carry on even in the face of adversity (the US might have avoided a lot of unpleasantness if they had stayed in force and continued to hunt for Somali warlords after the "Battle of Modigishu" [aka Blackhawk Down] rather than withdraw after taking 18 casualties vs @ 500 for the Somalis (the ration is even more lopsided if WIA are taken into account). If the clans realized they would continue to take vastly disproportionate punishment for every US casualty they inflicted, then they would not have come to the conclusion that US and Western forces are casualty adverse, and would probably devise tactics to avoid contact with superior Western forces at all costs, rather than engage and inflict casualties at all costs.

Thucydides wrote:OTOH, if you can successfully spoof high tech weapons with smoke, etc., why would you not be able to spoof the MK-1 eyeball of a pilot busy trying to line up his airplane against a difficult, defended target (obscured by smoke and with his airplane's GPS disabled)?

Ah but that´s the thing, a pilot isn´t seeing it through a camera, which allows less restrictions on what can be seen, and very importantly, what the pilot can see of the context. The pilot can use that much higher situational awareness to decide where to go to get the best view to defeat countermeasures.

A drone operator will need to be lucky to achieve the same.

Thucydides wrote:You can say the Chinese make quadcopter drones for peanuts, but it is American kids who buy them for $99 at "The Source" and play with them for hours, Americans have far more hands on familiarity than almost anyone else.

How is that different from most of Europe?

Thucydides wrote:The other factor is Western culture. In WWII, the Americans were justly famous for their high degree of mechanization, this was possible because the vast majority of American "kids" grew up around vehicles and many of them had hands on experience using them.

The difference compared to Germany was that there, the common vehicle for youngsters to play around with were motorcycles rather than cars.

UK, France and Italy also had cars and mc as very common to "grow up with".

My own country was way behind that, but the military still had zero problem getting people to skillfully use or service motor vehicles, the whole army could have been fully motorised in a year or two without issue.

The REAL reason, was that USA was the only major massproducer of vehicles that was not heavily affected by the war already.

USA when entering WWII was mostly lowtech, and tech savvy among civillians were probably not far from much of Europe, and more often than not it´s considered to have on average been lower rather than higher ( when major powers are compared ).

Only reason USA at the time was becoming hightech was because the UK pretty much gave USA everything they have during the 1939-1941 period, which later led to radar, nukes, jet engines, computers, better weapons, better armour, better engines etc etc...
(and after the war, USA profited extremely from this but still demanded UK pay for LL, that was real shitty)

In 1939, even Italy was higher tech than USA. France was far ahead except in massproduction organisation.

The US tech "leap" came much later.

Thucydides wrote:We currently accept that military devices are expensive and essentially "bespoke" items that are hand built in small batches, which is one of the reasons for the vast cost of military hardware, but looking at things like the "Willow Run" factory it is entirely possible to build even large and complex items in vast quantities and for "reasonable" prices. If we can go into battle firing Hellfires for $4000/round rather than $40,000/round (or Excalibur smart artillery rounds for $7000/round rather than $70,000/round)

For this kind of price reduction, production volume would have to increase considerably. You might get away with using civilian grade components in missiles and drones or selling production in excess of need, but I'd imagine the market for components of artillery shells is rather small because such an extreme acceleration isn't really encountered otherwise.

When I was in charge of some military procurement we tried to cut costs by using off the shelf items as much as possible. Just two examples out of many -

Ruggedized lap tops (for maintenance field manuals etc)were painted khaki with some components encased in epoxy, had 286 processors in the Pentium era, and cost over $5000. Against much opposition I bought good quality civilian ones for under $1000 that were actually more reliable in the field due to domestic use developments (toddlers are harder on equipment than the Taliban).

A helicopter pitot tube is a hollow metal pipe about the size of a large pencil that measures airspeed. We were quoted $800 from the manufacturer (S***ky). Took one to a good metal turner to duplicate and sent exhibit A and B back asking if they could tell us which was which? They replied that it didn't matter as the real criteria was airworthiness certification, and if we did use non certified parts and a helo crashed anywhere for whatever reason they would ensure that we ended up personally blamed. Did more research and found the original supplier who would provide them for $80 with certification. Not a trace of embarrassment from the main company (Just business Boy!!). Next fleet we bought European.

aairfccha wrote:

Thucydides wrote:We currently accept that military devices are expensive and essentially "bespoke" items that are hand built in small batches, which is one of the reasons for the vast cost of military hardware, but looking at things like the "Willow Run" factory it is entirely possible to build even large and complex items in vast quantities and for "reasonable" prices. If we can go into battle firing Hellfires for $4000/round rather than $40,000/round (or Excalibur smart artillery rounds for $7000/round rather than $70,000/round)

For this kind of price reduction, production volume would have to increase considerably. You might get away with using civilian grade components in missiles and drones or selling production in excess of need, but I'd imagine the market for components of artillery shells is rather small because such an extreme acceleration isn't really encountered otherwise.